Replies

Re:
Those 2 "new" USA Today memos...may be forgeries of the forgeries?!

I was following that thread last night just b4 I went to bed. I immediately wondered if it might be a troll...something didn't seem right. The person who posted the thread had just signed up yesterday. He didn't provide a link at first, then he did. I downloaded the files, but still was suspicious. So I went directly to USA Today and tried to download them from there...couldn't do it. I tried for an hour and could not get them to download from USAT.

This morning I was able to get the pdf files at USA Today with SIX memos featured. BUT...the USAT original article includes links for the "text" of the memos in addition to the pdfs. I clicked on the "text" and found transcriptions for only the original FOUR memos. So, we're to believe that USAT has 6 memos, but only referenced the text for 4?

I believe the two new memos may be hoaxes. Could be that a troll is trying to get us off on a wild goose chase to discredit the legitimate investigations we've already done. Did they hack into USAT? Is that why I couldn't download the pdf files for over an hour last night?

(Notably, neither of the two "new" memos has a signature...and there are other anomalies.) Here's a link to the original thread:here.

USA Today article

I'm convinced the whole purpose of this hoax is to distract the electorate off of Kerry's Viet Nam misdeeds. The desperate and angry Dem's will stoop to anything at this point. Dan Rather as one last contribution to the cause, will retire after this intentional hoax is revealed. The Dems know as long as the story stays on the frontpage, a few precious votes will be swayed over to Kerry's side.

We need to get back to Kerry's fraudulent early buggout, Silver Star Citation Forgeries, aiding the enemy and planning the assasination of US Senators.

I AM WITH YOU. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THAT "LINK". FREEPERS DO NOT RUN WITH ANY INFORMATION BASED ON THOSE NEW DOCUMENTS. SOMETHING WRONG.

Great detectuve work, Timeout. I saw it too and my first reaction was to check the url. Usually a "faked/forged?" url has an @ symbol in it but that was back in the old days. Once people were onto that I dont know if/how they changed the methods of doing it. But it used to be fairly easy for nefarious parties to do.

Someone might want to alert Freep patrol to check out the authenticy of this new addition. One thing WE dont want is to have our credibility or legitimacy challenged.

Freeps and bloggers should not run with this until it is thoroughly checked out.

"I was following that thread last night just b4 I went to bed. I immediately wondered if it might be a troll...something didn't seem right. The person who posted the thread had just signed up yesterday...."

"...I believe the two new memos may be hoaxes. Could be that a troll is trying to get us off on a wild goose chase to discredit the legitimate investigations we've already done. Did they hack into USAT? Is that why I couldn't download the pdf files for over an hour last night?"

This is the sort of stuff that incites flame wars on usenet where I have posted for a few years predominantly on scientific groups. Nevertheless, let me be clear, I have not hacked into anyone's website. That would be criminal and I don't know how to do it anyway. Stop with the silly paranoia please. Just because someone is a newbie does not make them bad or evil incarnate. I will be happy to discuss my activities/thoughts as I did on the two threads of interest yesterday, but the truth is my thread had over 4,500 views within just a few hours and most of those were early on. A swarmed USAT site is likely why you had difficulty last night.